Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Monsanto Co. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2090)	5/27/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

What a dumb -- or lying -- minister... Butterflies have not been proven to be harmed in the field. Butterflies are not considered "useful insects" "Such as" implies other insects are harmed. On the contrary, beneficial insects have been shown to thrive in BT corn fields. Where are "several recent scientific studies"? (Unless they mean the kind published -- and performed -- by European newspapers?) Thursday May 27, 10:24 am Eastern Time (Note: this article is ''in progress''; there will likely be an update soon.) Austria bans Monsanto gene maize VIENNA, May 27 (Reuters) - The Austrian government on Thursday banned cultivation of a genetically modified maize -- Bt Maize MON-810 -- produced by Monsanto Co of the United States. ''This decision has become necessary because several recent scientific studies have produced evidence that Bt-maize can damage useful insects such as butterflies,'' Consumer Protection Minister Barbara Prammer said in a statement.

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2090)	5/27/1999 4:56:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

BBC/UK 'Moral obligation' to develop GM crops Thursday, May 27, 1999 Published at 13:02 GMT 14:02 UK [Notice "Christian Aid" is given the last word in this article; note, this organization is an arm of "Friends of Earth", which is closely tied to Greenpeace. If you go through almost all the UK articles, you will find that one of (Greenpeace, Friends of Earth, or Christian Aid) are almost always quoted. Why should the same group dominate the press over and over again, especially when they often lie? Dan] GM crops will improve "food security" An influential UK scientific think-tank says there is a moral obligation to develop genetically-modified (GM) crops. A report produced by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics says the new technology could bring benefits to developing nations by helping to feed growing populations. Pallab Ghosh reports: "Some researchers think GM technology can produce crops resistent to the excesses of nature" But it also warns that better regulation is needed to ensure the crops do not damage human health or the environment. The council, which has addressed other major ethical issues such as genetic screening and animal-to-human transplants, has no statutory powers but does have influence in government. BBC Washington correspondent Philippa Thomas gets the view from the US In the conclusion to the report, the council's working party says all the GM food on sale in the UK is safe to eat. It also says there are no grounds for a ban on GM food or moratoria on commercial planting, which environmental groups have been demanding. Call for government regulation The working party's chairman, Professor Alan Ryan, Warden of New College, Oxford, says GM food raises ethical issues that are typical to all the new gene technologies. Dr Sandy Thomas of the Nuffield Council explains the 'moral obligation' "It promises considerable benefits at the same time that it threatens some dangers," he says. "One of the messages of our report is that getting the benefits and avoiding the dangers can't be left to the marketplace alone. Intelligent government regulation is needed as well." Fearful Indian farmers burn GM crops It is for this reason that the council welcomes the UK Government's announcement last week to set up two new commissions to advise ministers on practical and ethical aspects of biotechnology. But the report is strongest on what GM crops might offer developing nations in producing plants with less disease and higher yields. It says the new crops will "make a substantial contribution to food security", making a vital impact in combating malnutrition. It does make the point, however, that research needs to be directed more at the food staples of developing nations, rather than at the crops grown in Western countries. The council also calls on the government to increase its financial support to agencies that are working in this direction. Corporation profits Andrew Simms of Christian Aid: GM food producers naive or calculating There are many in the green lobby and some working for overseas aid groups who believe GM crops will do little to benefit farmers and their families in the developing nations. The council sees no reason to ban GM plants A recent report by Christain Aid said the technology would put small farmers out of business and increase overall poverty. "They talk about feeding the world - but all the corporations want to do is feed their profits," said a spokesman. "The multinationals are imposing a technology that favours large-scale farming techniques. That will destroy the livelihoods of smaller farmers - and so wreak havoc on local communities." Christian Aid's concerns have been echoed by ActionAid. It fears the new herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant crops will tie farmers into purchasing expensive chemicals. It says the seeds and chemicals would probably be produced by the same multinational, boosting the profits of the company while impoverishing the farmer. news.bbc.co.uk

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2090)	5/27/1999 7:44:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Respond to of 2539

Places like India, China and Africa have reasons to be really pissed off at Greenpeace, Friends of Earth, and Christian Aid; basically, these groups have been lying so EUROPE wouldn't have to worry about the small GM risks (i.e., should the EU have to import products from the third world). That really sucks -- these groups are no better than Hitler was, in my opinion. (from the story below) The Nuffield Council of Bioethics, a group of independent scientists who look at the moral implications of new medicines and technology, said there was "a compelling moral imperative" to accept GM crops in order to combat world hunger and poverty. People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their "anxieties about the very small risks" have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council. (full story) Jo Revill The Evening Standard 27 May 1999 West Has 'Moral Duty' To Accept GM Food A leading group of scientists today backed the Government's stance over genetically modified food, saying that the technology was "hugely promising" and that there was no basis for calling it unnatural or unsafe. The report - the sixth study of the subject in seven days - is the first authoritative work to support Government ministers against claims by environmentalists and others that GM crops present a huge risk to our food and to the countryside. The Nuffield Council of Bioethics, a group of independent scientists who look at the moral implications of new medicines and technology, said there was "a compelling moral imperative" to accept GM crops in order to combat world hunger and poverty. People in wealthier countries such as Britain with their "anxieties about the very small risks" have no right to deny poorer nations the technology that could help them overcome malnutrition and hunger, according to the council. Third-world farmers could be helped to grow rice enriched with Vitamin A or crops that are salt or drought-resistant, which would do much to combat malnutrition. It could enable farmers in Africa to grow crops in areas where it has previously been impossible to do so, making it easier for local agriculture schemes to flourish. Today's publication acknowledges the public's unease on the subject, but points out that human beings have been modifying food for thousands of years. "If we value the ethic of 'to each according to his need', then the introduction of GM crops on a large scale would be a moral imperative," it says. "This is because GM crops might produce more food, or more employment income with which to obtain food, for those who need it most urgently. "More food for the hungry, unlike tomatoes with a longer shelf-life, is a strong ethical counterweight to set against the concerns of the opponents of GM crops." However, today's report calls for careful assessment of the needs of developing countries before crop varieties are introduced, so that it does not reduce the demand for labour or affect other plants. And the study is likely to be slated by Friends of the Earth and others for underestimating the risks of genetic modification. The council, an independent body of scientists, ethics experts and public representatives, calls for a wider assessment of the environ-mental risks, but says there are no grounds for any delay in the commercial growing of crops. It points out that the technology has great potential to bring us better flavoured and more nutritious food such as vegetables that contain added vitamins, nuts that don't cause allergies, or warm temperature crops that could be grown in Canada or Sweden. Professor Alan Ryan, chairman of the working party and Warden of New College, Oxford, said: " We think that GM crops are not intrinsically morally suspect. We do not think that GM technology violates nature in ways that other modern plant breeding methods do not. "But we do think that anyone who does believe that GM food is unnatural and immoral should be able to avoid it."

To: Anthony Wong who wrote (2090)	5/28/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: Dan Spillane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2539

EU says Austria did not follow EU rules on crop ban [Why does Austria need to follow EU rules, when they answer to Greenpeace instead? Look in yesterday's story...they mention "Greenpeace" several times, but don't seem to care what the commission thinks. Government by terrorists is NOT a good thing! Dan] (from YESTERDAY'S story) The environmentalist group Greenpeace welcomed the move and urged other EU countries to follow suit. ''Member states are now doing what the Commission should also be doing: recalling the Bt-maize which has already been approved and planted in some member states,'' Greenpeace genetic engineering expert Benedikt Haerlin said in a statement. ''Greenpeace urges all EU governments to take swift and appropriate action now.'' (link to YESTERDAY'S story) biz.yahoo.com (TODAY'S story) Friday May 28, 9:47 am Eastern Time BRUSSELS, May 28 (Reuters) - The European Commission said on Friday an Austrian ban on the planting of a genetically modified maize produced by U.S. agri-food giant Monsanto Co (NYSE:MTC - news) had been put in place without following the necessary EU rules. ''The only way they (the Austrian government) can do so is in accordance with EU procedures,'' Commission spokesman Peter Jorgenson told a news briefing, adding that the EU executive had only found out about the ban from Austrian press reports. Austrian Consumer Protection Minister Barbara Prammer said in a statement on Thursday that she had banned the maize, known as Bt Maize MON-810, because of recent scientific studies that had shown the strain could kill butterflies. But Jorgenson said the Austrian government should have notified the Brussels-based Commission and EU member states of its intention to ban the maize detailing the reasons why it thought such an embargo was necessary. EU member states had the right to impose such unilateral bans for a period of three months provided they could come up with the appropriate scientific evidence, he added. The Commission itself announced last week it was freezing the approval procedure for another strain of GM maize developed by U.S. company Pioneer Hi-Bred International (NYSE:PHB - news) following the publication of the same U.S. study referred to by Prammer. The EU executive has also warned that similar products made by Monsanto and Switzerland's Novartis , already in use in Europe, might also be banned if EU scientists concluded they threatened the environment. Austria banned imports of another GM crop made by Novartis in December 1996. Jorgenson, in answer to a question, said he was unaware of any meeting by EU scientists in Brussels on Friday to discuss Austria's decision to impose that ban.